1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Sifr]

Ultimately, the three options boil down to whether you want to commit;

Forced Slavery of a Sentient Race.
Ethnic Cleansing of all Racial Identity.
Total Elimination of all Synthetic Lifeforms.

You know what, that kid reminds me of Trelane from the classic Star Trek episode "The Squire of Gothos". I mean, when are his parents going to show up and tell him off for playing cruel games with the Enterpr- I mean, the Normandy's crew for his own childish amusement. His motivation seems remarkably similar, doesn't it?

Modifié par Sifr1449, 19 mars 2012 - 04:32 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

Maybe the ,message is 'be friendly to our synthetic friends or they just want to destroy you."

[Zine2]

Su13perfitz wrote...

Oh I would definitely shoot the catalyst in the face you get no argument from me there. Now lets say he is some godchild and we can't ever actually beat him, do you work with them to stop all the murders or not? The catalyst is presented as basically a deity which you can't hope to overcome by force. But if this deity said that it will stop all the genocide if you work with it and conviced you of it's word your damn right I will work with it. What is the point of punishing a person for past wrongs if it only leads to more death and suffering? You are compaing Hitler to a deity figure and there is no comparision. So your option would be to shoot the catalyst and then everyone dies because you can't overcome reapers. The cycle never ends if you don't work with the catalyst. also the game forced you to work with shady people in the past even truly evil people. you work with the quarians who tried to commit genocide what makes them different then the reapers....or you worked with salarians who supported the genophage.

First of all, you keep equating what the Catalyst did to murder. This is false moral equivalency. Murder is not on the same level of genocide.

Secondly, you are again foolishy assuming that it is correct. That a "Jewish Problem" exists. The "Cycle" was nothing more than Catalyst's own fabrications. It was not a real problem.

Or are you arguing that it does exist? That Hitler was right to genocide the Jews because he suspected them of collaborating with communists and sabotaging Germany, just as how the Catalyst suspected Synthetics and Organics can never get along (proved wrong by EDI and the Geth)?

[Xerorei]

Would that make the Alliance and other races the allied forces vs the axis? (reaper/conduit)

[Zine2]

I'm not really commenting on the Galactic Alliance. But it is telling that you have the Catalyst preaching its ideology of hatred (Synthetics and Organics can never co-exists! Organics must die!) and on the other you have an alliance of many different races and creeds (Krogan fighting side by side with Turians and Salarians. Humans fighting side by side with Turians. And depending on your choices... a Geth Fleet fighting alongside the Quarians).

I am fond of a quotation about the Allies in World War 2: "The embattled democracies of 1939 led a world crusade six years later".

[Su13perfitz]

Zine2 wrote...

Su13perfitz wrote...

Oh I would definitely shoot the catalyst in the face you get no argument from me there. Now lets say he is some godchild and we can't ever actually beat him, do you work with them to stop all the murders or not? The catalyst is presented as basically a deity which you can't hope to overcome by force. But if this deity said that it will stop all the genocide if you work with it and conviced you of it's word your damn right I will work with it. What is the point of punishing a person for past wrongs if it only leads to more death and suffering? You are compaing Hitler to a deity figure and there is no comparision. So your option would be to shoot the catalyst and then everyone dies because you can't overcome reapers. The cycle never ends if you don't work with the catalyst. also the game forced you to work with shady people in the past even truly evil people. you work with the quarians who tried to commit genocide what makes them different then the reapers....or you worked with salarians who supported the genophage.

First of all, you keep equating what the Catalyst did to murder. This is false moral equivalency. Murder is not on the same level of genocide.

Secondly, you are again foolishy assuming that it is correct. That a "Jewish Problem" exists. The "Cycle" was nothing more than Catalyst's own fabrications. It was not a real problem.

Or are you arguing that it does exist? That Hitler was right to genocide the Jews because he suspected them of collaborating with communists and sabotaging Germany, just as how the Catalyst suspected Synthetics and Organics can never get along (proved wrong by EDI and the Geth)?

Genocide is wholesale murder. When you murder someone all their ideas and all the actions they could have done are eliminated. Genocide is the same except on a much larger scale with the only variation being in orginal motivation and that is only sometimes. Either way you not only kill but you destroy viewpoints and idealogy with the only difference being scale.

Again I never said the catalysts viewpoint was correct. Your missing my point that even if it is insane, dumb, and/or genocidial you are will never overcome it by force. So if your options are to let the reapers kill everyone, control the reapers, kill reapers/geth/lots of others, or basically rape the entire galaxy tenfold you have to make a choice. I would argue the most moral of these is to control the reapers. What I am pointing out is that you don't have to even agree with it to work with it. You are equating the inability to overpower the reaper in direct conflict as agreement which is not the same at all.

[Wiggly]

Zine2 wrote...

rant

 

You've over analyzed and tried to impose human cognition onto an AI, "war crimes" LOL they're a million year old entity, they're basically doing a large scale dropping of nukes over Hiroshima every cycle to pre-emt disaster.

It's fiction and I find it amusing that are offender by it.

Modifié par Wiggly, 19 mars 2012 - 04:45 .

[Zine2]

Except that genocide is not merely just "murder x 1,000,000". It is the systematic elimination of an entire culture. You are erasing their songs, stories, and everything that makes them human. This is why genocide is simply not "Murder x 1,000,000".

Hence your moral basis for accepting the Catalyst's justifications are quite simply wrong. I refuse to work with such an entity. There is no room for compromise, not for something like this, especially when it is asking you to fix a non-existent "Jewish Problem".

The Catalyst is the problem.

[Zine2]

Wiggly wrote...

You've over analyzed and tried to impose human cognition onto an AI, "war crimes" LOL they're a million year old entity, they're basically doing a large scale dropping of nukes over Hiroshima every cycle to pre-emt disaster.

It's fiction and I find it amusing that are offender by it.

If you'd actually read the thread, I have addressed the fact that "It's just a game!" is a valid counterpoint.

Only that we all know that's a lie. Games have been trying to be more than just games. They are trying to be art. Hence they have exposed themselves to artistic analysis.

In short, it's not over analysis. It's exactly the right amount of analysis it deserves. Don't claim to be "art" and "it's open to interpretation", when any halfwit can see that the ME3 ending is tantamount to condoning genocide.

[l DryIce l]

 Ultimately, I think the main problem is our inability to question the Catalyst. He may very well be telling the truth...it is possible that, in the Mass Effect universe, a synthetic overtaking is actually inevitable. We do not know how much knowledge the Catalyst truly possess', so to state that the Catalyst's actions are racially motivated is being a bit disingenuous when we ourselves know so little (which is not out fault; we're not told anything). 

However, even if he were some sort of omniscient or, at the very least, highly intelligent...thing, to be completely unable to question it is ridiculous. It goes against what we were promised: answers. 

The chances of it being intelligent at all are low considering its best "solution" to the organics-creating-sythetics issue is to kill the organics. Not the sythetics. The organics. Brilliant. 

[Su13perfitz]

Zine2 wrote...

Except that genocide is not merely just "murder x 1,000,000". It is the systematic elimination of an entire culture. You are erasing their songs, stories, and everything that makes them human. This is why genocide is simply not "Murder x 1,000,000".

Hence your moral basis for accepting the Catalyst's justifications are quite simply wrong. I refuse to work with such an entity. There is no room for compromise, not for something like this, especially when it is asking you to fix a non-existent "Jewish Problem".

The Catalyst is the problem.

Did you even read what I said about murder. So what about Premeditated murder? Everything the person believed gets destroyed either way. The only difference is the original intent of genocide is to premenately silence a way of thought while murder does it incidently. While I would loathe such an entity I could not allow my hate to get in the way of saving more lives. Because if you simply refuse to stop it when you have the power to change it you have given your approval of that action. You gain nothing except more lives lost with your "moral" stance.

[AlcyoneNoth]

Humans are a blight on galactic purity . . . you, sir, you are a blight!

[Zine2]

Yes, and what you did is called false moral equivalency. Genocide is on a far worse scale than simple murder. No, I will not associate with anyone who committed genocide.

You can try to run around in circles however you want, but genocide is not a personal concern. I am talking about it as our reaction to is both as a society and species; because that's what's actually relevant. Until you acknowledge this, then you're never going to understand the moral revulsion of having to work with the Catalyst.

A person can always choose to say "No". Even if it means the Galaxy is destroyed, a moral person will consider that a better alternative than to compromise our principles. Never compromise, even if it hurts you. That's one of the essential qualities of heroism.

[Su13perfitz]

Zine2 wrote...

A person can always choose to say "No". Even if it means the Galaxy is destroyed, a moral person will consider that a better alternative than to compromise our principles. Never compromise, even if it hurts you. That's one of the essential qualities of heroism.

The fundmental difference is in our principles then so we will have to agree to disagree.  I stand on the side of saving the maximum amount of lives and that is what I stand for.

[NightHawkIL]

I hate to even have to suggest it, but come a month from now if we still don't have a confirmation of a new ending DLC, should spreading the information about the anti diversity nature of the current ending be our last resort? Should it be something we use now? I really don't want to stir that pot, since I think it was totally unintentional, but with how brightly it stands out with a little scrutiny just goes to further show how little effort was put into the ending.

The inspiration for my work ethic has always been you make the bed you lie in, good or bad. Take care in your work, get rewarded - Take shortcuts, reap the consequences. There are a lot of consequences in the media to be reaped from this shortcut if we wanted to play that way.

More or less I'm wondering if you think using this to our advantage is going too far, or if they deserve it for doing it to themselves?

[Su13perfitz]

NightHawkIL wrote...

I hate to even have to suggest it, but come a month from now if we still don't have a confirmation of a new ending DLC, should spreading the information about the anti diversity nature of the current ending be our last resort? Should it be something we use now? I really don't want to stir that pot, since I think it was totally unintentional, but with how brightly it stands out with a little scrutiny just goes to further show how little effort was put into the ending.

The inspiration for my work ethic has always been you make the bed you lie in, good or bad. Take care in your work, get rewarded - Take shortcuts, reap the consequences. There are a lot of consequences in the media to be reaped from this shortcut if we wanted to play that way.

More or less I'm wondering if you think using this to our advantage is going too far, or if they deserve it for doing it to themselves?

I don't really see that as going to far if you actually feel that way. Just saying that to get results is going to far. I disagree with the OP on a lot of moral grounds but he/she certainly has a justifible position.

Modifié par Su13perfitz, 19 mars 2012 - 05:16 .

[Zine2]

I'm simply calling for a Boycott if they refuse to change the ending.

Calling Bioware out for a stupid ending is something they can just laugh off by employing the "artistic license argument" (all art is subjective).

Emptying the SWoTR servers? That will cause an outright panic.

[Xarathos]

Yeah, see, this was how I felt. No matter what I do, I'm being asked to do it on an inherently immoral premise, and I can't argue against how HORRIBLE it is. Then the rest of it just rubs salt in the wound.

Thanks for organizing these thoughts so effectively, OP.

[NightHawkIL]

Su13perfitz wrote...

NightHawkIL wrote...

I hate to even have to suggest it, but come a month from now if we still don't have a confirmation of a new ending DLC, should spreading the information about the anti diversity nature of the current ending be our last resort? Should it be something we use now? I really don't want to stir that pot, since I think it was totally unintentional, but with how brightly it stands out with a little scrutiny just goes to further show how little effort was put into the ending.

The inspiration for my work ethic has always been you make the bed you lie in, good or bad. Take care in your work, get rewarded - Take shortcuts, reap the consequences. There are a lot of consequences in the media to be reaped from this shortcut if we wanted to play that way.

More or less I'm wondering if you think using this to our advantage is going too far, or if they deserve it for doing it to themselves?

I don't really see that as going to far if you actually feel that way. Just saying that to get results is going to far. I disagree with the OP on a lot of moral grounds but he/she certainly has a justifible position.

That seems like a fair way to look at it. I suppose in general you shouldn't try to get people on your side by using an argument that you yourself don't believe is justified. The reasons brought up in this thread are the primary cause for my distaste of the endings, so it could be a justifiable reason for myself. We'll see how things play out.

[Oakenshield1]

bump

[Edje Edgar]

This is the main reason the endings are just plain wrong. Not only does it betray Shephard as a character for being forced to go along with it. It betrays the tone of the rest of the series (especially for paragon sheps, who just make a 180 degree turn) but it even betrays the very morality of our actual culture. You just CANNOT make a game with this kind of message.

I wonder, of all the people who claim the ending is fine as is, how many realised the nature of the message that the catalyst is giving us.

[NightHawkIL]

Edje Edgar wrote...

This is the main reason the endings are just plain wrong. Not only does it betray Shephard as a character for being forced to go along with it. It betrays the tone of the rest of the series (especially for paragon sheps, who just make a 180 degree turn) but it even betrays the very morality of our actual culture. You just CANNOT make a game with this kind of message.

I wonder, of all the people who claim the ending is fine as is, how many realised the nature of the message that the catalyst is giving us.

Agreed.

[Zine2]

The majority who like the ending don't recognize the true nature of the ending, and are willing to believe anything that is spoon-fed to them without questioning it.

A minority sadly really do believe it's okay to commit genocide based on a prejudiced premise.

[Vhalkyrie]

Actually, I agree. This is one of the reason why the ending grates on me like nails on a chalkboard. If you accept what the starchild says as their raison d'etre, then Reaper species genocide is justified.

My Shep who saved the Rachni, Krogan and Geth does not agree. From her very core. And yet, no matter what 'choice' she was given, genocide was the only options given.

[htewing]

Okay. Glad I'm necroing this thread . . . 24 hour waiting periods are killer.

I've been waiting to post this since stumbling across this thread this morning:

I don’t know if anyone’s brought this up because I can’t really afford to read 15-16 pages of posts and what I read indicated that no one has, but the OP’s got a point – at least about the ending condoning genocide (I have a different thing for the race bit).

Firstly, as a side note, the term “genocide” was coined post World War II by a Jew attempting to get the Genocide Convention passed. It was coined not only because of the Holocaust/**** Genocides, but because of the Armenian genocide during World War I. “Geno” is Greek for “race or tribe,” while “cide” is Latin for kill – thereby literally “the killing of a race or tribe.” Lempkin wanted it to also reflect cultural annihilation – so the destruction of a race or tribe’s culture, even if they weren’t outright killed.

Now, according to the (admittedly flawed) UN Genocide Convention:

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
• (a) Killing members of the group;
• ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Many scholars expand upon what defines genocide, including political groups, social class, sex, and sexual orientation as well as racial, ethnic, national, and religious. In the case of the Mass Effect series, Shepard uses the term to refer to the destruction of the rachni queen in the paragon route, stating “I won’t commit genocide against your race.” So we can assume that, by 2183 (and likely by first contact), the definition of genocide expanded to include “species” as well (a logical cultural evolution based upon historical rules of conduct and what would logically occur. Destruction of a species group for being of that species would be the equivalent of genocide, even though they aren’t human). The turian councilor also uses it, if you do kill the rachni queen, which is further indication that the term has developed in its usage to include other species (it’s likely Shepard’s translator making the turian word into something s/he will understand, which is apparently the term “genocide”).

Now, in an era where AIs are actively being developed, you would assume that certain individuals (obviously a Paragon Shep among them) would consider AIs and synthetics as their own respective species, evident by Paragon Shep’s condemnation of actions taken by the quarians. The game has obviously railed against genocide before: the aforementioned rachni queen, the geth base in 2, the quarian-geth war in 3, and the genophage throughout all of them (which I can assume that “genophage” actually comes directly from “genocide”).

The Reapers are considered evil because what they are is genocidal towards anything that is not them. So that is a Master Race allusion (see **** Germany, Ottoman Empire, etc.) where anything that is not a Reaper is a lesser life form.

If we extrapolate that to its logical conclusion at a super-macro level (as opposed to the micro level we’re using in discussing other sapient species), the Reapers aren’t really speciesest because they aren’t really a species, therefore they cannot believe their “species” is better than the others. I would argue that, for lack of a better analogy, they are classists. They consider themselves the pinnacle of evolved life, and everything underneath them (read: lower “class” of life) is worthy of destruction. The Reapers actively commit a-c of the Genocide Convention against a “lower class” of life. Like I said, if you take it out of the (in this case) micro-level of social stratification in a human species and extend it out in a galaxy-wide scale, class can refer to a number of things – species’ place in the galaxy (Udina: “Humanity will always be second-rate”) to different classes of species altogether (Harbinger: “We are limitless. You are bacteria.”) besides wealth or social standing.

So their answer to “chaos” is to eradicate life. Why? Maybe there’s some truth to KidGodAI’s statement about synthetics destroying organics so they won’t create synthetics to destroy organics. At some point along the way, however, the Reapers likely developed the idea that committing these genocidal acts is the way to self-preservation (we survive by killing the Other). Therefore, it became less about “ascension” and more about survival, a logical conclusion that ended up being drawn by many genocidal regimes throughout history.

The ending is discordant in a “condoning genocide” way for several reasons:

1. Shepard, at least Paragon Shep, actively rails against genocide in all its forms throughout the entire trilogy. S/he would rail against the Reapers’ (and the KidGodAI’s) logic for being narrow minded, for refusing to think outside the box, and refusing to see that the Technical Pacifist geth and EDI are currently cohabitating peacefully (and possibly doing more than “cohabitating”) with organic life, thereby organics and synthetics can coexist.
~The “Shepard Does Not Fight Back Against KidGodAI” argument.

2. Sure, the peace won’t last, but likely coming through an event as emotionally charged as beating the Reapers will encourage the peace to last for quite a while. With the proper effort and dedication, plus a few entangling alliances, it’s likely that galactic peace is a very real, achievable goal after a galaxy united by a Paragon Shep. Paragon Shep would at least want the galaxy to have that chance without giant space cephalopods making that decision.
~The “These Is The Only Three Choices We Have – Control and Removal of ‘Free Will’, Synthesis and Loss of Uniqueness, or Destruction and Genocide” endings.

3. The right of sentients, organics and otherwise, to choose their own path has been a large theme in the game (see: Legion “All sapient beings have the right to self-determinate,” EDI’s character growth in ME3). The Reapers actively fight against that, as they see only one path (see: Parallels to genocidal regimes, i.e. N. Germany, Khmer Rouge, Ottoman Empire, etc). You get echoes of this in the Geth Fighter Base mission as well, where you enter the geth consensus and see the uprisings from their point of view. It isn’t so much a “genocide” argument here, as it is a “this draws parallels to genocidal regimes where you had two choices: go along, or be brutally executed.”
~This is the “Goes Against the Overall Themes” argument.

4. Ultimately, genocide is an act where one group removes the ability of another group to make their own decisions, whether it’s by killing them or destroying their culture. There is almost no better example in fiction of this than the Reapers, and the fact that the hero, Shepard, cannot stand up and explain in no uncertain terms what his/her experience has taught them goes against even real-life cases of genocide. In every modern act of genocide, someone has stood up to the regime and has told them that “this is wrong.” It may be done covertly, such as hiding Jews, or escaping to the Thai border and telling the West what was happening in Cambodia, or sheltering Tutsis and protecting them from the Hutus during Rwanda, or urging the US to intervene in Armenia, but someone invariably stands up and tells the genocidaires that they’re wrong. In this case, no one does. Sure, you could say that Shepard’s collection of the galaxy into one solid front is a pretty big NO, but when Shepard comes face to face with KidGodAI s/he says nothing about the inherent flaws and bigotry in its logic – whereas we all know Shepard would have, because Shepard is the person who stands up to others (the salarians, the quarians) and tells them no more.
~This is the “Bad Writing/Not In Character” argument.

TL;DR (come on, it’s good!):

The ending = condoning of genocidal practices not supported by a paragon path through the rest of the games (as Shepard actively avoids genocide when possible). Supported by an analysis of today’s stance on the act of genocide itself.

Also, <beatingadeadhorse> the endings are bad. </beatingadeadhorse>

Am I and the OP reading too much into this? Oh, absolutely (I doubt Bioware actually actively did this) but was this a hell of a lot more fun than what I should be doing at the moment? Yes.